</font><font color="blue" class="small">( How's it more sporting for the deer? Because you have a bettter chance of missing? A better chance of missing = a better chance of a wounded animal running away which = another + for a ban on bowhunting. That's the logic anti-bowhunting groups will use.)</font>
It's more sporting for the deer because MOST hunters wouldn't take a shot past 30 yards with a bow, which I would consider a long shot at a deer from a stand. It's no big challenge to shoot a deer with a high powered rifle, with a high dollar, high powered scope. So for one, the deer has to be much closer. That in and of itself I think increases the odds in the deers favor. With a rifle you can shoot AT a deer from a distance that he probably wouldn't even wind you if he was down wind. At that distance a strong gust, or a small twig can deflect a bullet, assuming your rifle is sighted in perfectly, depending on the muzzle velocity and distance your not necessarily going to hit where you were aiming. To me that means a bow is much more sporting for the deer.
There are lots of idiots out there with high powered rifles who try to make impossible shots, just because they can see the deer in the scope. I'd bet a paycheck that there are many more non-lethal gun woundings of deer than bow woundings, and I am sure just as many if not more misses. Thats why I'm saying in my opinion this whole debate is about slowly chipping away at hunters rights in general, to the animal rights activist it's not all about bow hunting. It couldn't be any more obvious to me. None is so blind as he who will not see.
As far as your logic statement; Anti bowhunting=anti hunting, and these groups use no logic at all, just an opinion for their argument. Argument does not equal logic.
Ken